Opponents, proponents of Redskins name are dug in, with no middle ground

Posted by Mike Florio on October 8, 2013, 9:57 AM EST

AP

In one corner, we have the defenders of the Redskins name. Their approach has included shouting down those who question the name, offering up arguments ranging from illogical to disingenuous, and/or trotting out a parade of horribles that eventually would result in every nickname based on a type of human or other species being eradicated from sports.

In the other corner, we have those who realize that the time has come for a word that could not be used in modern parlance to be removed from the roster of NFL team names.

And the two sides will remain entrenched until a solution is found. It’s hard to imagine any solution that entails the Redskins name remaining in place.

Kevin Gover, director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, has suggested perhaps the best alternative name I’ve heard to date: the Americans.

“The point is that it’s about context,” Gover said. “If you called them the Americans and had a contemporary Native image, that’s inclusive. That’s much different from singling us out and calling us by that name and having the image of a stereotypical Native American from the 19th Century, as though we’re not still around.”

More and more people connected to the game of football are expressing an opinion that the name should not still be around.

“The Redskins nickname is offensive to Native Americans,” former Buccaneers and Colts coach Tony Dungy said on Sunday’s Football Night in America. “In 2013 we need to get that name changed.”

A couple of weeks ago, someone asked Dungy in the NBC viewing room when the name should change.

“Fifteen years ago,” Dungy said.

Current ownership and management have shown no inclination to make the change, on any timetable. As Jay Glazer of FOX pointed out during the Sunday pregame shows (and as we’ve separately heard from multiple sources), General Manager Bruce Allen provided a lengthy defense of the name in a conference call held last week for the purposes of preparing for this week’s ownership meetings.

The effort to defend the name seems to be motivating and recruiting opponents. In the aftermath of Allen’s comments, for example, we’ve heard chatter that the reaction by some on the call was that the defense of the name was “absurd” and “insulting to the intelligence.”

The only position provided to date by owner Daniel Snyder — “NEVER, you can use caps” — was described with a different term on Monday.

“If someone in the classroom or the workplace tells you that something is offensive, and you say, like Dan Snyder said, in capital letters, ‘We will not change the name,’ that’s textbook harassment,” clinical psychologist Michael Friedman said during the D.C. symposium.

Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, the NFL now faces the reality that one of its 32 teams has a name that reasonable minds regard as offensive. With Commissioner Roger Goodell explaining that the league will listen to those who are offended and the league currently scheduled to meet with Oneida Nation to discuss the name, the opposition becomes even more reasonable, regardless of whether it’s objectively correct.

That’s the problem. As proponents and opponents engage in a red-state/blue-state debate over whether the name is offensive, the NFL now has as part of its reality a polarizing issue that, even for the ultimate reality show, brings a little too much reality to the table.

The seeds for this one were planted more than 20 years ago, when the first effort to challenge the team’s federal trademark rights to the term were launched. And as more people have had the occasion to stop and think about the plain meaning of the word, more people have come to the conclusion that the word should go.

With the league legitimizing those concerns by both acknowledging and engaging them, even more will come to the conclusion that the word should go.

Eventually, the word will go. The question at this point isn’t where the last domino will land, but how all the others in between will fall.

How is this still a relevant issue? Snyder owns the team. He says he is NEVER changing the name. End of story. Lots of things are offensive in the world. If the NFL wanted him to change the name, they could find a way to force him to change it.

Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, the NFL now faces the reality that one of its 32 teams has a name that reasonable minds regard as offensive.
————————
Reasonable minds don’t regard this as anything at all. If you’re looking to be offended there are plenty of options. Reasonable minds question gifting every person with a percentage of Indian blood $20K upon reaching age 18.

goskins7244 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:14 AM

Enough of bashing on the Redskins proud name. PFT’s obsession on this issue and (Tim Tebow) is getting weird.

stinger124 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:14 AM

Just cut out all the PC crap and leave them alone. The name was fine for 80 years. Political correctness is a stupid idea.

thatstinks says:Oct 8, 2013 10:14 AM

Makes sense . Its hard to have middle ground when the the question is do you or don’t you want to keep the name Redskins .

The term “red” was adopted by French and English by the 1750′s after the reference to “red man” was made in 1725 by a Taensa chief.
According to the French (1725), the Taensa referred to themselves as “Red Men.”
Three chiefs of the Piankashaws wrote (1769), “You think that I am an orphan; but all the people of these rivers and all the redskins will learn of my death.”
In 1807 French Crow (Wahpekute, Santee Sioux) said, “I am a redskin…”
In an 1815 speech by Chief Big Elk of the Omaha Tribe, he called himself (and others in similar positions among different tribes) “red skin chiefs”.less

mogogo1 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:16 AM

What exactly would be the middle ground between changing the name and not? Alternating names every week?

Yet the Chiefs name is OK and their fans can dress in Native American head dresses and nobody bats an eye. Or the Atlanta Braves (and the Chiefs) doing a tomahawk chop and chant. Or the Cleveland INDIANS (how is this not offensive?) keeping their name with no complaints.

The Redskins are unfortunately in the nation’s capital and for some reason have to do more to appease the masses than a team with a much smaller market in a lesser talked about city.

This whole thing is maddening! Why are Florio and King acting as proponents and taking sides rather thanjust reporting the situation? I hope they dont change the name. This is about freedom not offensiveness to a minority. Dan Snyder bought and paid for that team, let him call it what he wants. If people dont like the name then dont go to the games buy the merchandise or sponsor the team. The name will change if there is an economic reason but it should never change because somebody has made it their agenda to get attention. Who cares what their name is, if you dont like it then dont be a fan. Dont try to bully free enterprise by crying “poor minority”. As John Wayne said “This is re G#$ D@Mn diculous”!!

seatownballers says:Oct 8, 2013 10:21 AM

Gonna be a tough season for Washington. This is the biggest distraction that they don’t need. The defense is in shambles, , and Oh, Bob the third is overrated

minnesoulja says:Oct 8, 2013 10:21 AM

Go ahead. Change the name.

I will call them the REDSKINS til the day I die.

And I will ridicule anyone who calls them by their new name for being a product of the SISSIFICATION of this once proud and strong community. It’s sickening. Is this the age of enlightenment or just a reason to complain about inequality and make excuses/look for reasons to fight a pollitically correct agenda.

Soon here, your regular JOE strong/silent type, will go on the warpath. Oh no, was that insensitive to say? Cry about it.

With all the other issues around the country like natural disasters, Sandy Hook, terrorists, government shutdown, etc. How does the name of a football team become so important? There are musical groups with more offending names and nobody can do anything about that because their names are covered by free speech. Anybody can get a permit to hold a rally even for offensive topics. The KKK did. I think the Black Panthers actually got permits too.
If your teams, name offends you then pick another team to root for. Simple as that!

Red Skins is a derogatory name that they called themselves as opposed to the n word that was given to African Americans by their slave masters….I know the history and I find it all to be BS. No one says anything about the Cleveland Indians who have a cartooned red face Indian with bucked teeth. BTW is it not politically correct to say Native Americans not Indians right because Indians are from India.

My last point on this subject, when was the last time you heard someone use the word Redskins to describe a Native American in 2013. Its not like someone sees a Native American and said “I hate those Redskins!” I think its rare to none. Unlike African American who are still being called n*****rs, to this very day!

theredbengal says:Oct 8, 2013 10:27 AM

“Opponents, proponents of Redskins name are dug in, with no middle ground”

When one side wants a name change, and the other side doesn’t, then there CAN’T be a middle ground.

I have a reasonable mind and I don’t regard the name as offensive at all.

My suggestion is to do a national poll of Native Americans and let’s find out just how many of them regard the name as offensive. Then act accordingly. Giving in to little groups making big stinks is just the usual PC baloney we see in modern life… and Rev. Dungy occasionally hits the mark with observations on football but I wish he’d leave all the social commentary to the talking heads who earn their living telling the rest of us what to think and what to do.

jbl429 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:29 AM

How can there be a middle ground? Either they change their name or they don’t.

BlackandGoldMNBruinsFan says:Oct 8, 2013 10:30 AM

Reasonable minds regard as offensive? What about the reasonable minds that regard this as inoffensive? I’ve read it a lot lately and I’ll say it again…if you need to change the name of the Redskins because it’s offensive, then you need to push for the name change of Oklahoma. Change the colleges (Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) and change the name of the state itself. Oklahoma means “red people.” Is that acceptable, Mike? What about “Fighting Irish?” That’s an unacceptable stereotype as well, right?

“Opponents, proponents of Redskins name are dug in, with no middle ground” – Sounds like our government.

baywolfe says:Oct 8, 2013 10:30 AM

Can we PLEASE stop calling them Native Americans? They are not native to North America; they just came over during the last Ice Age via the Aleutian Islands instead of by ship over the ocean. No humans are native to North America.

I don’t see this ending anytime soon, and a lawsuit to force the team to change the name already failed because nobody attached to the lawsuit was older than the team name. The team had the name before anyone who sued was born and therefore it was deemed that the team name came first and they couldn’t force a change. Daniel Snyder is nothing if not stubborn, and I doubt he cares as long as the most effective form of protest isn’t happening… Hitting his bank account. Games still sell out, RG3 jerseys still sell, and the courts arent gonna force him, so why should he care?

Proponents: “It’s not racist because it’s never been a slur. Historically, it referred to warriors painting themselves red before going to war.”

Me: I don’t believe it’s racist, and the Sports Illustrated poll that indicated over 80% of Native Americans actually want the name to stay the same seems far more in line with reality.

However, let’s say the squeaky wheel gets the grease again, since the rational folks always cave to the uninformed minority of protestors…

I’ll be ok with a Redskins name change as soon as the more racist and more offensive Fighting Irish, Indians (seriously, Wahoo?..That logo?..INDIANS??? Ok, Columbus), & Chiefs are removed from the equation.

I don’t understand why this is more offensive then the other native American related names…Braves, Indians, Chiefs, Blackhawks. I initially thought offense was being taken because the name was being co-opted when the team has nothing to actually do with them. Seems like it’s much more than that.

I would think they’d be offended by any professional team that ‘borrows’ from their culture.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your first paragraph. The reason why there is no common ground is because the PC libs REFUSE to listen to any other view points but there own. Anyone who disagrees is labeled a racist and out of touch with the issue. The truth of the matter is that at this point people are just jumping on the bandwagon for a name change without doing any thorough research behind how the Skins became the team name in the first place. Some people just throw their name in the hat just to have their name in the news. Nevermind the fact that other team names are just as offensive. If the PC people dont get their will continue to pout until do.

BTW I am liberal myself and I think the Redskins should keep the name.

Ignorance is no reason to change the Redskins name. The color of red symbolized violence, war, blood, wounds, strength, energy, power and success in war paint but might also symbolize happiness and beauty in face paint.

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:39 AM

How about answering these questions and then maybe further discussion can presume.

1. Why are people offended by something when there is no intent to offend?

2. When the intent is to revere and celebrate positive characteristics of a people, why do people find ways to take offense to past negatives that haven’t been used in over a 100 years?

3. How does a word become more offensive over time despite the fact that the use of the word has decreased and is only used to describe a football team in society today?

4. What negative experiences have the so called offended have actually had in their lifetimes that show that the term is indeed offensive? If you have never actually been personally insulted by a term then why do you take great offense to it when it is used to glorify who you are.

5. What is the actual definition of Redskin? How is it used today to purposely offend people? Is there something wrong with being a redskin?

The point is, just because the word can be twisted and used to offend doesn’t mean it actually is offensive. In society today the word is rarely, if ever used to offend. It’s main use is to describe a football team. It seems to me that unless you have actually had a negative experience with someone using that term to actually offend you, you’re awful sensitive or just imagining offense for inane reasons.

Ultimately, I see a very easy compromise by the Redskins returning to the Braves nickname, using the spear logo and keeping the same colors. Another compromise would be changing the name to the Washington Natives and using the spear logo and same colors or using the current logo if that o.k. I am not against a name change as long as it isn’t a complete departure from the history of the team. I still think the offended need to adjust their distorted reality (being offended by something that is intended as respect) or actually provide real world experience where the term Redskin has actually been used to offend them.

It won’t change until the NFL makes them change it because they refuse to sell any merch with the name stitched or stamped on there. Without the shield prohibiting them from keeping the name, why should they change it?

This really just screams of someone going out of their way to be offended.

szwhtsup123 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:41 AM

So the Oneida Nation will use liberal backed extortion so Synder can “buy” the name from them. Then it won’t be offensive anymore, will it?

as a dolphins fan & a Cherokee Indian I support the name at no point would I change this name!! We have some many other problems as Indians that this effort could be going into. This is a small portion of Indians taking on this fight (very small less than 1% of Indian population) however there are a whole lot of blacks & whites fighting for that think somehow this is there fight it’s not! They way we were treated for years & years Its a honor when we see our names held up in pride!! The name is in no way racist (never has been) If your called Redskin that would be prideful & honorable! In no way is name about skin

robf2010 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:43 AM

Snyder should seize the merchandising bonanza at his fingertips. He can sell the Redskins gear to all of those thinking he’s fighting the good fight and he can sell the new gear to those who will claim victory over him. He should do this since football doesn’t appear to be his thing.

THERE IS NOTHING RACIST ABOUT THE NAME REDSKINS. Out here in California the Native Americans call themselves Redskins and Skins as a word of pride. This is a TV media and Political attention getting game that is HYPOCRITICAL and ignorant. OK Obama, politicians, and citizens, if you all of a Sudden feel bad for Fairness to the Native Americans then you need to give them back all the land stolen from them!!!! Meaning almost this entire country was theirs before our US government Stole, murdered raped and killed them in order to aquire this country. Ok tony Dungee time to tell the City of Seattle they need to return that city to the Native Americans. Until the Hypocrites out there are ready to give back all that was stolen from the Native Americans they can stop using the Redskins as a political scape goat!!
Also inform the BROWNS they need to change their name, it’s offensive to Mexican and African American people. Also Lets sue the Breast Cancer Foundation! we have to watch football players parade around in Pink but the breast cancer foundation is DISCRIMINATORY toward MEN! STOP letting MEdia frenzies dictate your lives

Man this is craziness, we’ll have equality when the media stops making issues which are not racial in nature all about race. Do you believe they named the team Redskins as an insult to an entire demographic? How about the Indians, how insensitive is that considering Columbus didn’t find India for Godsakes. I mean my god, this is so trumped up its bogus.

Why does Mike Gloryhole always come out looking like the DA when it comes to the REDSKINS!

icanspeel says:Oct 8, 2013 10:49 AM

Stupid Question, but say they were renamed “Braves” or “Indians” would all the advocates against “Redskins” be happy? Not saying to use those names, but if they do change the name could come up with something similar.

Are the Saints next? There are more atheists who must be offended by that name than there are people TRULY offended by the Redskins. The people clammering for the name change are the ones who are truly being disingenuous. Dungy made his millions and now that he’s safe he’s acting all high and mighty. Please try and solve real problems and imposing your beliefs on everyone else.

clarencewhorley says:Oct 8, 2013 10:50 AM

Quick change the name of the state of Oklahoma

sikoix says:Oct 8, 2013 10:50 AM

I spend a lot of time during the summers on a nearby reservation (northeast US) and have been to several tribal council meetings and other functions. I’ve heard a lot of strange and unusual complaints over the years, but never any complaints about the name of a sports team or ever even heard the word ‘redskin’ mentioned (and they do have some racial zingers they use amongst each other, just never heard that). What most people don’t seem to realize is the ridiculous amount of politics involved between tribes and groups of natives. Competing tribes are constantly competing with each other to get recognition and resources from the federal government, and now that the ‘Oneida Nation’ seems to be leading the charge here, I can’t help but wonder if they have any pending business with the federal government that could be helped by all this PR. From the beginning, this has all felt very politics-driven.

They can change the REDSKINS name when they change the state name if OKLAHOMA (red people). Oh wait, what? No one cares about that? Hypocrites!

clarencewhorley says:Oct 8, 2013 10:54 AM

Most American Indians say that calling Washi
ngton’s professional football team the “Redskins”
does not bother them, the University of Penns
ylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey
shows.
Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name
“offensive.” One percent had no answer. The marg
in of sampling error for those findings was
plus or minus two percentage point

tinbender2000 says:Oct 8, 2013 10:55 AM

I can’t get the image of Dan Snyder standing on a table shouting “We can do this 3 ways, My way, My way, or My way”! out of my head.

Hate the team, love the name that is giving the NFL a ton of free publicity. Marketing genius. I might actually buy a ‘skins jersey even though I never have worn another teams colors. Stand firm Dan Snyder!!!!

Heaven forbid that anyone, anywhere, anytime should be ever be offended in anyway. Ban anything that is offensive to anyone. Hey I’m even offended by people who say they are offended. Where does it all end?

When was the last time you heard someone say “the Redskins suck”…. Did you honestly think they were referring to the football team? Or referring to native Americans? As this point in the season the the football players in Washington might be getting offended by getting called the Redskins with the way they are playing so far…

saints4life57 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:01 AM

Yeah this all makes no sense! So should we pull all the old western movies off the shelf because they are offensive? If they changed their name where would this end? People today like to find something to argue about and run with it! As soon as the media gets ahold of it, it just gets blown way out of control! Damn leave the team alone!

lightningbuggs says:Oct 8, 2013 11:02 AM

Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to not be offended.

If liberals like Florio don’t like the name, here’s a thought. Don’t watch Redskins games on TV. Don’t go to the stadium to see them. Don’t buy their merchandise.

You’re free to ignore them all you like. But leave the team alone.

You DO NOT have the right to tell someone else what to do with their property.

I’m so sick and tired of the liberal crusade on this. They’ve ruined our once great country with this PC crap.

soforizo says:Oct 8, 2013 11:02 AM

Florio,

Being “offended” is an emotional response. So claiming to be in the side of logic when all the while your argument is based on emotions is absurd.

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:05 AM

I also want to point out that there is a difference between offensive and racist. The term redskin is racist as it singles out a specific race. However, you would think when a race is singled out as a favored race to represent a group of people that it would be the excluded races that would have a problem with the group excluding them and not the race that has been chosen to represent the group of people.

redskins82 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:06 AM

You and Mike Wise really need to get over yourselves. So everyone who disagrees with your opinion is “illogical” and not a “reasonable mind.” You understand that includes the overwhelming majority of this country (80%), Native Americans (90%), and people who comment on this site, right? I mean no one in this country agrees on anything these days. To have 80% of the country disagree with you is no small thing. You need to give up this ridiculous “crusade” and stop insulting your readers.

I believe you were challenged by a commenter yesterday to put up a PFT poll and get the pulse of PFT planet. We’re waiting……

oilman989 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:12 AM

While I agree 100% with “bleedgreen” (first comment) according to the PC specialists, the logo may be more offensive than the moniker.

So how about reverting back to either the feather running down the middle of the helmet or – my personal favorite – the warrior’s spear on both sides? Doesn’t that actually better reflect traditional Native American pride and honor?

I am Cherokee Indian. I couldn’t care less about the name. Here’s a simple fix. Tell all the “offended” people who want the name change to pay for the name change and all legal fees. Pay to remove all redskin memorabilia from Fed Ex field. Collect, fundraise, donate, and raise the millions of dollars it would cost to buy all redskin memorabilia from around the world and then they can make their case. This is nothing but left wing trash trying to bully people into doing things they want done.

I would argue that…. In one corner, we have the OFFENDERS of the Redskins name. Their approach has included shouting down those who DON’T question the name, offering up arguments ranging from illogical to disingenuous…..

I very much enjoy the majority of your web-site Mike but am not a fan of your leftist political angles. If you think the name should be changed, buy the team and do as you see fit.

@paulz624, the name of the Cleveland Indians isn’t offensive, it is the redface cheesing Indian caricature that is offensive

The franchise name is offensive in D.C., but this is not something that can be compromised on. It is either keep it or change it. Believe no lie that comes from Goodell’s mouth. That, “If one person is offended,” turned into well, umm, err…trash. Now it’s “not enough people are offended.”

ok…i am so tired of this. If you want to change the name then put up the 1.6 BILLION dollars and buy the team to change the name. If it were that offensive then why are people not picketting at the
NFL – Kansas City Cheifs
MLF – Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians
NBA – Atlanta Hawks, Golden State Warriors NHL – Chicago Blackhawks
Lacrosse – Brooklin Redmen, Burlington Chiefs
Kitchener-Waterloo Braves, Elora Mohawks, Mississauga Tomahawks, Six Nations Arrows, Six Nations Chiefs, St. Regis Indians

This whole thing is stupid. Like others have said, you have other organizations that are doing the same thing and have had the name for YEARS with no objection. I guess the middle ground would be for them to be called Redskins at home and Skins on the road.

eaglesnoles05 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:21 AM

Are we also gonna give back all the land and go back to europe? Cuz on the hierarchy of things-we-have-done-to-offend-native-americans, that’s probably more substantial and worth looking into. No? Right. Exactly.

The Oneidas are also going after my high school mascot: The Warriors. If the Redskins name changes, every domino behind it will fall too.

eaglesnoles05 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:26 AM

Seems to me Native Americans commenting on this site would condiser it a slap in the face if the name was changed. That’d be about par for the course for how we treat them throughout history too, so maybe that’s why they want to change it. To slap the NA’s in the face one more time.

I wish I was born in the 60’s. This PC social media world is too much, man.

granadafan says:Oct 8, 2013 11:27 AM

How would those bashing PC talk feel if the Texans or Cowboys renamed as the Texan Rednecks or the Dallas Teabaggers? How about the Carolina NRA Murderers? Jacksonville Christian Taleban? Notre Dame Diddling Priests? Miami Vice?

sparty0n says:Oct 8, 2013 11:29 AM

So in other words in one corner are all the insensitive extremists and in the other are all the level-headed, kind people????

________________________________

….Their approach has included shouting down those who question the name, offering up arguments ranging from illogical to disingenuous, and/or trotting out a parade of horribles….

In the other corner, we have those who realize that the time has come for a word that could not be used in modern parlance…..

What I find offensive is some “white” people, thinking it is offensive to be “red”, as if a reddish skin tone is something to be ashamed of.

Would proponents of a name change have a problem if Snyder’s team were called the “whiteskins” with colonial man as its logo?

Ah probably… they’d likely claim it makes whites look superior. Which to me it suggests that those “white” folks are closet racists.

dannyabramowitz says:Oct 8, 2013 11:33 AM

Give it a rest Florio. We understand that this is the most important issue in the world to you but we’d like to read about some, you know, football. This is profootball talk right, not the huffington post.

By the way… I am offended by the term Mountaineer. I think it depicts the good people of West Virginia in a bad light because when I hear that nickname it makes me think of moonshine swigging, toothless wonders of the mountain ranges. Perhaps you should look into getting your alma mater’s nickname changed to the Mountains so I am no longer offended.

Everyone who thinks the name Redskin is ok, try calling a Native American that. To their face. Over coffee. Like, “You Redskins sure do like donuts!” See how right it feels. Or maybe call an African American “blackie” or a Chinese American “yellow skins”.

Taking ownership of a name (like “queer”, “redskin”, or the n-word) by a historically marginalized group of minorities is a common way to reestablish control over a culture. It is not a tacit acceptance of the name’s historical meaning.

1890 it is not. The cost of democracy is inclusion. Join the 21st century – you may like it, we have beer-holding hats.

kvanhorn87 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:35 AM

No matter what side you are on, I can assure you the name will be changed. The NFL will make it so once there is enough pressure. Then Snyder will sue. Any self-respecting court will state as has done in other cases of insensitive business names or signs that they are not allowed to use a derogatory term no matter what the meaning or tradition. Just a matter of time.

pixelito says:Oct 8, 2013 11:35 AM

As as tough as they try to sound, everyone knows the Redskins are changing their name in the next 2-3 years.

“Reasonable minds question gifting every person with a percentage of Indian blood $20K upon reaching age 18″, I don’t know where you get your information from but I am American Indian, and neither me or my brother EVER got $20K when we turned 18.

“Its not like someone sees a Native American and said “I hate those Redskins!” I think its rare to none. Unlike African American who are still being called n*****rs, to this very day!” African Americans call themselves that…. I’m not saying its right I’m just pointing out a fact.

With that being said, as far as I have read on this, it is only ONE tribe complaining about the name so apparently not ALL Native Americans are offended by the name, or if they are offended by it they are figuring there are bigger issues in the world than whether or not a Football team is called the Redskins.

After watching this s-storm in my home community for the last 30 years (first my middle school, then my high school, then my college) I can only tell Redskin fans that it WILL change (only a matter of time) and even if you support the name, you will be beaten down by the opposistion over years and years and years and years and years of complaining and moaning about injustice, at which point, you will say, “I don’t care anymore.”

djstat says:Oct 8, 2013 11:39 AM

As a kid, all I ever heard was, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me”. We are a little over sensetive in this country

Change any and all names and references to the American Indian culture in the sports world.

Don’t be pressured into accepting what are “good” Indian names and “offensive” ones.

Dump them all and with it the reminder that there is an American Indian culture.

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:45 AM

I also want to point out that there is a difference between offensive and racist. The term redskin is racist as it singles out a specific race. However, you would think when a race is singled out as a favored race to represent a group of people that it would be the excluded races that would have a problem with the group excluding them and not the race that has been chosen to represent the group of people.
___________________________________
After I typed this, I started thinking and it hit me that this fight was brought to the media by a group of white politicians. Maybe they’re offended because they don’t like the fact that there is so many teams out there respecting and remembering the Native American culture. Maybe it’s their end game to get rid of all references to the Native American culture in sports for some other purpose than because they feel bad for the Natives. They start with the Redskins since it is the easiest target and move to the others until all reference to Native American culture has been removed from the public eye. Maybe those of you that think you’re on the side of the Natives are really playing into the hands of those that actually hate the Native Americans. Conspiracy theory, I have no idea why people would want to do this, but people do a lot of things that make no sense to me.

iberiasaint says:Oct 8, 2013 11:48 AM

Maybe Native Americans can pool their resources, and purchase the team from its current owner. They they can name THEIR team. As of now, its not their team so the government does not have the right to dictate what the name should be, only the owner.

This has more to do with internal New York State-based Oneida tribe politics and Ray Halbritter than it does about them getting all P-O’d about the Redskins name. A little research on Google reveals that. The Redskins name has been around 70 years or whatever but only now is their any REAL uproar. It’s about politics and publicity for Halbritter, a long-time publicity hound. Simple as that.

As far as Mr. Smartypants Clinical Psychologist’s wimpy little quote about “that is textbook harrassment”…uh, try again. Just because someone finds something “offensive”, doesn’t mean it is and it doesn’t mean you’re required to stop using the term. Let’s say someone finds the term Buckeye offensive and wants you to stop using it. Are you required to? No.

Now if the opposition is well organized they can respond by boycotting the Redskins – that is their right too.

My feeling is that people who are opposed to the name arent really football fans and will have a limited economic impact on this decision.

However, if I am wrong – they can send a message to Daniel Snyder that will get his attention (bottom line).

Ball is in their court.

snow52480 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:54 AM

By the way. In 2002 a group of students at Northern Colorado named their intramural basketball team the ‘Fightin Whities’ as a form of satirical protest against schools who used Native American names for their mascot. The only problem? It backfired when the name became wildly popular. So much so that people started demanding merchandise with the name on it. Quit being taught to be offended by everything America. The only thing I am offended by is the fact that we keep electing these same self-righteous jack@sses to elective office…..

painsyndicate says:Oct 8, 2013 11:54 AM

I find Black Entertainment Television to be offensive for many obvious reasons. Who is lining up to protest about that?

My feelings are hurt over BET.
I am offended by BET.
I was picked last for kickball by BET.

1. The team was given the name out of RESPECT for Redskins
2. Case closed

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 11:58 AM

Change their name to the Whiteskins and see which group complains.
____________________________________
I’m not sure how you perceive this, but i’m pretty sure no white person would care, i’m guessing all the other races would be up in arms (if anybody would care) because they would feel like the team is saying that white people are better than all the other races.

If the league forces the Redskins to change their name, they will have to compensate Dan Snyder 700 million dollars or whatever he paid for the team. He bought a brand and that sale was approved by the league. You may not like Snyder, but he cannot be forced to bear the costs of the name change if the NFL “forces” him to do so.

The NFL approved the sale, they can not now force one owner to bear more costs than others arbitrarily. Wait, they already did that to the Redskins and Cowboys. My bad.

weepingjebus says:Oct 8, 2013 12:05 PM

According to a national AP poll over 90% of football fans and 80% of regular Americans didn’t want to change the name. This is a standoff between two camps sort of like Genghis Khan had a “standoff” with every other army he encountered — maybe for the first couple of minutes until someone ordered a charge.

Darkoestrada says:Oct 8, 2013 12:06 PM

THIS OFFENDS NO ONE. INDIANS LOVE THE NAME!!

Said everyone who has never met an actual American Indian and even after reading more and more stories about how in fact, a good number of them are offended. It’s insane that the name has lasted this long but even more insane how violently people are trying to defend it. This isn’t a case of political correctness gone too far. It’s a case of one of the most recognizable sports teams being called a straight up racial slur. The name will be changed within a few years. Snyder is only delaying the inevitable by trying to fight it.

seatownballers says:
Oct 8, 2013 10:21 AM
Gonna be a tough season for Washington. This is the biggest distraction that they don’t need. The defense is in shambles, , and Oh, Bob the third is overrated
——-
Sorry this is a stupid comment. The Redskins are 1-3 because Griffin isn’t healthy yet and their secondary can’t tackle. If you honestly think that players are distracted by the name when they are out there playing football, you are crazy.

Other than that, maybe you should be less concerned with the Redskins name changed and more concerned about the beating your Seahawks took at the hands of the Colts. So much for your being this unstoppable, # 1 team. Without a home NFC Championship game, you chumps aren’t going to the Super Bowl.

Wouldn’t the middle ground be, knowing its offensive and not wanting it to change to offend people?

jdfrox says:Oct 8, 2013 12:15 PM

Florio – your recap of the position defending the name is erroneous as you left out what I think is the best argument of all – an argument in support of the name by actual native americans. First, let me say I am not a Redskins fan, nor am I a native american. One might say then I am unbiased. At first blush, I thought the name should be changed because it does seem racist. However, Rick Reily’s column changed my mind. In that column he presented actual native americans (not white guys from West Virginia) who play on and for teams named the Redskins. They are proud of the name, not offended by it. So why should I care? You mocked Reily’s father’s position as though he was saying that the Chief’s name was more offensive then the Redskins name when clearly he was refering to the fans that dress as native americans and wear headdresses made of chicken feathers. He was not talking about the names. You very clearly feel the name is offensive, as do your NBC colleagues Peter King and Tony Dungy. That is fine, but don’t dismiss the support for the name without at least acknowledging the very legitimiate argument in support from those the name supposedly offends.

NotoriousKDV says:Oct 8, 2013 12:22 PM

It’s real simple. If you want Daniel Snyder to change the name then convince him he can make more money by changing the name than by keeping it. That’s what this is all about, money.

Look at how valuable the franchise is right now. He’s not going to risk devaluing the franchise by doing something like changing the team’s name. So the only way to get him to change the name is to figure out a way for him to make even more money by changing it. All of these attempts to get him to change it based on some kind of morality are just an exercise in futility. The only approach that will work is an economic approach. Convince him that he can make even more money by changing the team’s name and I guarantee you it will happen.

This is the last click you get from me on a Redskins name change article.

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 12:28 PM

What I find offensive is some “white” people, thinking it is offensive to be “red”, as if a reddish skin tone is something to be ashamed of.

Would proponents of a name change have a problem if Snyder’s team were called the “whiteskins” with colonial man as its logo?

Ah probably… they’d likely claim it makes whites look superior. Which to me it suggests that those “white” folks are closet racists.
____________________________________

The problem with this argument is that this is not what the Redskins are doing. They are adopting the name to themselves. This is what people like you are not seeing. The proper analogy would then be to ask if someone would be willing to go to a group of Redskins and introduce yourself as a Redskin. If you did, they might question why you would do that if you’re not actually one. Your answer to that question would then invoke offense or non offense. If you say that you want to be a Redskin because you admire their bravery, spirit and strength in battle, they would probably have respect for you. If you said something to disrespect who they are then they would have be offended. What kind of person though adopts a name to themselves to disrespect and offend someone else?

Last time I checked there wasn’t a constitutional right to not be offended, nor is one of the 10 commandments “thou shalt not offend”. This politically correct crap needs to end. What’s next? I can put out a scenario with EVERY major league sports team in which the name somehow will offend someone. In my case, all this whining about being offended is offending me & I am further offended that articles that are supposed to be about the sport of football keep getting interrupted with this triteness, but of course nobody cares about that. Don’t we have a lot bigger things to worry about in life? This entire discussion typifies the stupidity that is pervading today’s culture.

8man says:Oct 8, 2013 12:31 PM

No middle ground and no defense necessary. It’s one man’s decision; Dan Snyder.

If the Skins fans don’t like the name, they can choose not to attend the games or support the team. Everyone else who has no stake and no power in the decision can get bent and get over it.

Again Not ALL Native Americans are complaining about this. It is ONE tribe. It is the Oneida Nation bringing all this stupid crap up. And that is exactly what it is… Stupid.. This teams name has been around for like 80 years, I think that if people really cared about the name of the team and how they find it “offensive” they should have tried to change it 80 years ago and not now.

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 12:32 PM

My last post was posted with the wrong person of who I was responding to. This was the person I was responding to:

Everyone who thinks the name Redskin is ok, try calling a Native American that. To their face. Over coffee. Like, “You Redskins sure do like donuts!” See how right it feels. Or maybe call an African American “blackie” or a Chinese American “yellow skins”.

Taking ownership of a name (like “queer”, “redskin”, or the n-word) by a historically marginalized group of minorities is a common way to reestablish control over a culture. It is not a tacit acceptance of the name’s historical meaning.

1890 it is not. The cost of democracy is inclusion. Join the 21st century – you may like it, we have beer-holding hats.
___________________________________
The problem with this argument is that this is not what the Redskins are doing. They are adopting the name to themselves. This is what people like you are not seeing. The proper analogy would then be to ask if someone would be willing to go to a group of Redskins and introduce yourself as a Redskin. If you did, they might question why you would do that if you’re not actually one. Your answer to that question would then invoke offense or non offense. If you say that you want to be a Redskin because you admire their bravery, spirit and strength in battle, they would probably have respect for you. If you said something to disrespect who they are then they would have be offended. What kind of person though adopts a name to themselves to disrespect and offend someone else?

jpaq68 says:Oct 8, 2013 12:32 PM

This is nothing but a Jesse Jackson style shakedown. I’m actually surprised that Jesse isn’t out there himself clamoring for a piece of the potential settlement pie.

justintuckrule says:Oct 8, 2013 12:34 PM

In all seriousness, there actually is a middle ground. It’s called Snyder making a sizable donation for the advancement of native Americans. Words are hollow. If you want to prove that the name is intended to honor a particular group of people, prove it with your wallet. Otherwise, you’re simply profiting off racism.

By the way red staters…. What you just saw here is what some people refer to as compromise. Not my way or high way that gets you nowhere but voted out of govt.

jgedgar70 says:Oct 8, 2013 12:35 PM

And why is the name offensive? Most of the answers revolve around some notion of stereotyping Native Americans as being savages and exaggerated red skin tone and the like. But how about this angle…

It’s a football team. It’s not a research project, it’s not a history book, it’s not a statement about anything in the real world. It’s a football team.

Just about everyone I know has something in their real life they hate – rotten/no job, chronically ill family members, bad neighborhood, how to pay the kids’ college tuition, major strss at every turn. To keep our sanity, we turn to sports for a brief escape. We think, “I may be stuck in a dead-end job and I’m underwater on my mortgage and my mother has cancer, but if (insert favorite team here) can win this next big game, I’ll at least have those 3 hours to enjoy.” After the game we go back to trying to figure out how to solve the real-world problems.

But now we have some imagined perception that the DC football team is a referendum on some real life issue and if you don’t think the team name is wrong, there’s something wrong with you.

How about we just leave sports in their proper place, as a diversion from the worries of this life, and not insist that sports team nicknames are as important as how to feed your family or any other real-life problems?

“If someone in the classroom or the workplace tells you that something is offensive, and you say, like Dan Snyder said, in capital letters, ‘We will not change the name,’ that’s textbook harassment,” clinical psychologist Michael Friedman said during the D.C. symposium.
—————————————–

No, that’s switching scenarios in the middle of a sentence.

Look– The name is obviously offensive to NAs and it will likely be changed one day, but Snyder and the team are not harassing anyone. It’s a private business and that private business can decide on it’s own name in conjunction with the league. (at least for now until the Leftist Thought Police put their beliefs into law.)

onearmsteven says:
Oct 8, 2013 10:16 AM
Yet the Chiefs name is OK and their fans can dress in Native American head dresses and nobody bats an eye. Or the Atlanta Braves (and the Chiefs) doing a tomahawk chop and chant. Or the Cleveland INDIANS (how is this not offensive?) keeping their name with no complaints.
______
I can tell you haven’t been to Ohio. There have been people raising these same protests about the Indians name since I was growing up in Ohio in the 80s.

steaderic says:Oct 8, 2013 12:42 PM

Opponents, proponents of Redskins name are dug in, with no middle ground
Posted by Mike Florio on October 8, 2013, 9:57 AM EDT
======
Ok Florio, where are all of those opponents of changing the name. Every article you post here fails to cite how many people want the name changed. Roughly 22 people showed up to protest at Lambeau. Video of the DC symposium shows around 40 seated attendees, and I would assume a quarter of those were reporters due to their laptops and cameras. Where are the masses of outraged people? Plain and simple, they don’t exist. And you know it.

After reading all these comments I think it’s clear that those opposing the change have a much stronger argument. Those for it selectively use info to support their argument and ignore the real facts.

papichulo55 says:Oct 8, 2013 1:01 PM

The middle ground? The name will not be changed because Mr. Snyder is bullied by PC crusaders. The name will not be kept because Mr. Snyder champions the anti-PC cause. The name will change when Mr. Snyder hears the right dollars and business concessions from his NFL business partners. There is no question of what and who Mr. Snyder is. The only question about him is ‘How much?’.

commonsensedude says:Oct 8, 2013 1:06 PM

If they have to rename the team, why not call them the Washington Red Tape – in tribute to our wonderful Congress.

pugsley927 says:Oct 8, 2013 1:07 PM

The following is a list of team nicknames from the 4 major sports and some of the major colleges that can be deemed offensive or threatening to our “lets play nice, everyone gets a trophy” society.

Set aside the gov’t shutdown, changing these names is more of a priority.

I am still waiting for those who advocate changing the name to dignify those Native Americans who show up in polls and on reservations as not wanting the name changed, by giving voice to their point of view, too. The only person I have seen even make that attempt was Rick Reilly of ESPN who has been pilloried for it ever since. Perhaps the Smithsonian’s NMAI could be the venue for an open discussion involving Native Americans from both sides, rather than the panel they sponsored earlier this year that presented only one point of view.

sactogary says:Oct 8, 2013 1:13 PM

The Washington Americans, and get rid of the Indian motif altogether. Put a profile of Abe Lincoln on one side of the helmet, and MLK,Jr. on the other.

“If the league forces the Redskins to change their name, they will have to compensate Dan Snyder 700 million dollars or whatever he paid for the team. He bought a brand and that sale was approved by the league. You may not like Snyder, but he cannot be forced to bear the costs of the name change if the NFL “forces” him to do so.”
——————————————–

In the end, this ^^^is the main point. If the League forces him, they will owe him for the brand’s current and future revenue. So the only real recourse is for the leftist legislators to outlaw the name (don’t put it past them) but that will be tied up in courts for a long while.

Maybe the leftist bureaucrats who spend other people’s money end up making a deal with Snyder. Don’t look now, folks, but I can see a government bailout of sorts for the Washington Redskins.

As a kid, all I ever heard was, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me”.

—

Yes, that’s something parents teach their kids so that kids who get called names don’t get into fist fights with name callers. And they teach them that because names actually do hurt. They may not break bones, but they still hurt the psyche.

Alright.. Serious question here.. The Washington Redskins are under fire from Obama and everyone else about their name. Folks want it changed because it’s offensive. However, I can link all kinds of government forms that list the color of someone’s skin as a designation of their “race”. For example.. White and Black as choices. Seems a hypocritical to me that it’s OK for Caucasians and African Americans can be listed by their skin color but it’s not OK for other races?

“In one corner, we have the defenders of the Redskins name. Their approach has included shouting down those who question the name, offering up arguments ranging from illogical to disingenuous, and/or trotting out a parade of horribles that eventually would result in every nickname based on a type of human or other species being eradicated from sports.”

Wow, this opening paragraph is extremely biased and negative in how it paints the proponent side. It is also very unfair to generalize the group like this.

Did anyone read Rick Reilly’s article? Google it.

I am no fan of his, but his article was spot on. It contained some of the following writing:

White America has spoken. The majority of Native American/ Indian tribes aren’t offended, so we’ll be offended for you.

An Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name, and even though linguists say the “redskins” word was first used by Native Americans themselves, there’s no stopping a wave of PC-ness when it gets rolling.

Exactly….give it a rest, PC Police.

granadafan says:Oct 8, 2013 1:25 PM

“stevent92 says: Oct 8, 2013 11:36 AM
Left-wing America telling other people what they should do, while at the same time telling opponents not to force their views on everyone else. Classic.”
==================================================

It’s not surprising that conservative far right wingers would completely miss the point. Modern thinking “Left-wing America” is saying that, in a modern and civilized country, it’s no longer acceptable to have institutional racism, bigotry, and xenophobia.

Remember that $36 million you and the 29 others owners illegally colluded and stole from me? Enjoy all of the negative press, the politics, and all the headaches that come along with it.

Your Pal,

Danny

wiley16350 says:Oct 8, 2013 1:32 PM

And why is the name offensive? Most of the answers revolve around some notion of stereotyping Native Americans as being savages and exaggerated red skin tone and the like.
____________________________________
After reading this I started to think, is it possible that how you perceive Native Americans/ Redskins is what influences whether or not you find the name offensive or not? When I think of Native Americans/ Redskins, I think of bravery, People of great spirit that have great respect for the world around them, great warriors. I believe these are the attributes that teams want to associate themselves with when they use nicknames that refer to Native Americans. I don’t see anything wrong with being a redskin. Therefore, I don’t associate redskin with being offensive. On the other hand, if you view Redskins as savages and a people that reigned terror on others and you view that there is actually something wrong with being a redskin, then you would find the term more offensive. You would then strive to not associate Native Americans with being Redskins. The question is, was redskin ever used to describe Native Americans as savages? I haven’t read that anywhere, if someone has evidence that Redskin has been used for that reason, then by all means show it. Has Redskin actually been used to negatively portray Native Americans as something they’re not or was there an actual group of Native Americans that were savages that were called Redskins that make the other Native Americans repulsed by the name? I have yet to read anything that says that is true. If it is true, then I would absolutely change my view of the name Redskins. If, however, it is just a perception that is completely wrong (lack of historical proof) then maybe people need to change their own view of what a Redskin is.

elvoid says:Oct 8, 2013 1:33 PM

How about a current, third party poll of Native Americans asking them the “are you offended” question?

It will never happen – because the “offended” parties are not likely to get an answer that helps their cause.

The 2004 poll is relevant in that it showed 9 out of ten did not find the name offensive and it is the only poll of Native Americans I am aware of – so at the moment, it’s all we’ve got right now.

So how about a new poll? Can’t the offended masses come together, pay for and sponsor one? Sure they could! But they won’t because they are afraid the results will not support their position.

And this nonsense that Goodell threw out about “if one person is offended” we should listen? Sheesh – is he really that stupid? If we “listened” every time “one person” was offended over something, the gridlock would never end.

You know what else is offensive? Finding new land and taking it over by committing genocide. Should we give in and give all the land back to the Indians? Maybe Dan should do the same thing as our government and give the Oneida tribe a casino and move on……

I feel the Redskins should keep their namesake. I am acutely aware of the sensitivity of this issue, and understand why Native Americans may be upset. I think that our regrettable history, towards Native Americans, has a lot to do with the controversy. Nowadays, our nation has identified the Washington Redskins, as a football team, period. I don’t think one person would relate them to anything other than that. Besides, what name could they change it too? The recognized tribes, in the Maryland and Virginia areas (DC is actually located between these states) are:
VIRGINIA: Chickahominy, Monacan, Nansemond, Pamunkey, Upper Mataponi, Rappahannock . MARYLAND: Piscataway (not a recoginized tribe).
Like any other brand name, we recognize them for what it represents, not what we feel about an issue. Let’s take the Blackhawks? How do we identify them? (loaded question; a hockey team of course). But there are also Blackhawk helicopters (UH-60) and hand tool Co. What about Black Hawk, Colorado? Should the city change its name? The controversy could go on and on.
“Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.” Sitting Bull

Keep the name, but if need be “Reddogs” with the same colors and a fierce dog over the NA.

justintuckrule says:Oct 8, 2013 2:02 PM

“Offensive” is not the same as “racial slur”. Those whiny leftists as you say are not concerned with changing “offensive” team names. There are plenty of team names that can be considered “offensive” if taken in the wrong context. However, team names that are straight up racial slurs are slurs no matter how you interpret them.

If we are the beacon of freedom, democracy and acceptance of all races, creeds, religions, etc., we as Americans (regardless of party) should be against other Americans calling each other racial slurs. Simple as that and it’s no excuse that “it’s been that way for 80 years”. Doesn’t make it right.

gooboy6 says:Oct 8, 2013 2:10 PM

Not a fan of the Redskins or Dan Snyder, but I hope he stands his ground on this one.
—————————————————

1000% agree, are these people losing sleep or losing self-confidence because of this team name ?

RIDICULOUS- Snyder stand your ground

P.S. – my wife is part cherokee indian and she is a beautiful confident woman who doesnt even know who the Washington Redskins are LOL

grumpyoleman says:Oct 8, 2013 2:11 PM

Quit talking about it and nobody will find it offense. It’s a team nickname, nothing more or less.

cyncyn53 says:Oct 8, 2013 2:14 PM

I am a Home-grown Redskins fan, grown up going to games with my father, a WASP female. A huge sports fan overall. I have always followed my beloved Redskins, and even after living on the West Coast (49ers territory) since Montana days, the Redskins will ALWAYS be my team. But let’s face it, and back away now from the “look what all those other teams are called” high-school type comment. It’s immature and lends itself to the “if everybody else is doing it” mentality. Let’s LISTEN to people for whom we are FINALLY allowing some respect in allowing their voices to be heard and repeated. Do we white folk really think these thoughts were not there before? Minorities are finally in positions of power in all walks of life and they are now being repeated and heard – so let’s really LISTEN to the name REDSKINS. References in history to “the men of red skins” etc were for the colonists’ ignorant benefit; we whites couldn’t care less about the cultural and societal functions we imposed ourselves upon. Why should the Native Americans try to explain – and even if they did, would we Europeans have cared beyond how we used the knowledge to subjugate them? Do we truly want to continue to insult our fellow neighbors? So for this point in our so-called democratic history, let’s go beyond TRADITION and make a real statement that the Washington Redskins should be renamed to reflect the STRENGTH of our origins.

A name of Strength and Honor. So please, no Washington Bureaucrats, Fillibusterers, PAC-Gamers, or Sequesterers.

The Washington Hogs
The Washington GeorgeAllens
The Washington KilmerSpirals
The Washington Riggins
The Washington Monuments
The Washington DC’s
The Washington Football Capitols (there were once 2 teams named Giants in NY)

So, Tony Dungy, the name was ok 16 years ago, but not 15 years ago. You would have much more credibility if you said they should have never been named the Redskins. I guess in 1997 he was ok with the name but changed his mind in 1998?

I really like the objectivity of the opening two paragraphs. To paraphrase:
You have the idiots and liars that are for keeping the name, while you have the intelligent and thoughful people that want to do away with it…
Very impartial and balanced…

SORRY BUT DUNGY, OBAMA AND THE FEW NATIVE AMERICANS WHO DONT LIKE THE NAME “REDSKINS” ARE THE MINORITY. 90% OF NATIVE AMERICANS SAID THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE NAME. SO OBAMA, DUNGY AND ANYONE ELSE LOOKING FOR A SOAP BOX TO PREACH ON, KEEP LOOKING.

If the Redskins are forced to change the team name then they should change the league name as well. instead of NFL it should be NGL (National Goodell League). he’s totally ruining football as we know it.

Now I remember why I stopped reading the comments on this site months ago.

Reading most of the comments is like reading the minutes of the latest Klan meeting. Just replace “N”- word for “R”- word and it probably reads the same.

irishnativeson says:Oct 8, 2013 2:41 PM

As a person of Native heritage and to be completely honest, I never gave it much thought. That is until every mook with an internet connection felt compelled to weigh in with their two cents. It’s a goddamn shame that there is so little understanding that people will go out of their way, blinded by their own hypocrisy, violating common decency, defending the indefensible. If you aren’t Native American shut your pie hole. For Christ’s sake you don’t even have a dog in the fight. The team nickname really didn’t offend me until I realized how sycophantic and demonstrative of latent racism the majority of comments were. The only thing that disgusts me more is a pedophiliac, nice company to keep.

ice90 says:Oct 8, 2013 2:42 PM

As a communist, I am offended by the Cincinnati Reds. As a hispanic, I am offended by the Cleveland Browns. As a Scandanavian, I am offended by the Minnesota Vikings….. and on and on and on it goes.

Bottom line….. if the Redskins were a publicly owned franchise then I think the name would have changed long ago. As a privately owned franchise, the owner can decide to use whatever name he likes. If someone doesn’t like it, then don’t support the team, buy their products, or watch their games. That’s how it works in a free society.

“Indians” is definitely questionable. Years back in Little League, my community’s local Native Americans had their way and changed out team’s name “Indians” to “Orioles.” It changed my life. If somebody has a problem with Redskins, they’ve got to have the same problem with Indians, no doubt.

cyncyn53 says:Oct 8, 2013 3:29 PM

Sometimes you don’t know if someone’s offended because they (pick one):

*are introverted
*easily hurt
*worn down by repeated demeaning acts
* no one paid attention before
*they won’t think you will understand their perception

Like it or not, D.C. is the Nation’s Capital. Let’s stop the ignorant, racist stupidity in our lack of understanding of why the name should change. There would be a HUGE difference from the results of a 2004 and 2013 survey. It doesn’t matter whether the current brouhaha is politically motivated.

But the bottom line, unfortunately, is that this is a privately-held business, and the name is not illegal. In a capitalist society, this is therefore no problem when the owner is making money. So that’s the REAL ANSWER as to whether the name gets changed.

The name is racist, plain and simple. Should it be changed? Well that’s something else. But let’s stop pretending that the name “Redskins” is not racist.

Dan Snyder says he’ll NEVER change the name? Then Dan Snyder is a racist. Not a lynching kind of racist, no, but a racist all the same.

jgillmeister says:Oct 8, 2013 4:14 PM

To all you defenders of Snyder – What if the name was The Washington Wops? How about the Washington Mics? I’m of German descent and the Washington Krauts would be offensive to me.

I believe the name serves as a reminder that European immigrants stole this land from the native Americans.

Yeah, Chief Wahoo is offensive, just like the Tomahawk chop of the Atlanta and Florida State fans.
The NCAA got the U of I to drop its native American mascot by saying, keep it but no bowl games or March madness appearances. – Hey, now that’s an idea – Goodell should tell Snyder – keep the name if you want, but no 1st round picks until you change it.

getoffdbag says:Oct 8, 2013 5:22 PM

My last point on this subject, when was the last time you heard someone use the word Redskins to describe a Native American in 2013. Its not like someone sees a Native American and said “I hate those Redskins!” I think its rare to none. Unlike African American who are still being called n*****rs, to this very day!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

They call each other it every day so it can’t be that derogatory. I have still never heard a good excuse why they can call each other that but God forbid one of us white crackers call them the N-word!

Everyone who thinks the name Redskin is ok, try calling a Native American that. To their face. Over coffee. Like, “You Redskins sure do like donuts!” See how right it feels. Or maybe call an African American “blackie” or a Chinese American “yellow skins”.

Taking ownership of a name (like “queer”, “redskin”, or the n-word) by a historically marginalized group of minorities is a common way to reestablish control over a culture. It is not a tacit acceptance of the name’s historical meaning.

1890 it is not. The cost of democracy is inclusion. Join the 21st century – you may like it, we have beer-holding hats.
_______________________________
Actually, the price of democracy is not inclusion, it’s the willingness to protect the freedom of people to do and/or say things that bother you personally. I have a serious dislike for racism, but as soon as you say everyone except for so and so has the right to say whatever they want to, you no longer have free speech. Legislators need to stay away from this issue. If you want to force Snyder to change the name, you have to make it too costly for him to keep the name. Seeing as how we’re talking about a very profitable NFL franchise, good luck with that.

“I guess this is where I’m supposed to fall in line and do what every other American sports writer is doing. I’m supposed to swear I won’t ever write the words “Washington Redskins” anymore because it’s racist and offensive and a slap in the face to all Native Americans who ever lived. Maybe it is.
NICKNAME CONTROVERSY
The Washington Redskins are facing more pressure to change the team name, which many consider derogatory to Native Americans.
• OTL: Nickname racist?
Also see:
• Vote: Should Redskins change name?
• New York tribe challenges Redskins with radio ad
I just don’t quite know how to tell my father-in-law, a Blackfeet Indian. He owns a steak restaurant on the reservation near Browning, Mont. He has a hard time seeing the slap-in-the-face part.
“The whole issue is so silly to me,” says Bob Burns, my wife’s father and a bundle holder in the Blackfeet tribe. “The name just doesn’t bother me much. It’s an issue that shouldn’t be an issue, not with all the problems we’ve got in this country.”
And I definitely don’t know how I’ll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School — where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American — that the “Redskins” name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.
“I’ve talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it,” says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. “‘Redskins’ is not an insult to our kids. ‘Wagon burners’ is an insult. ‘Prairie n—–s’ is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But ‘Redskins’ is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I’d like to see somebody come up here and try to change it.”
Boy, you try to help some people …
And it’s not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they’ve worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.
“We have two great tribes here,” says Kingston assistant school superintendent Ron Whipkey, “the Chicasaw and the Choctaw. And not one member of those tribes has ever come to me or our school with a complaint. It is a prideful thing to them.”
“It’s a name that honors the people,” says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. “The word ‘Oklahoma’ itself is Choctaw for ‘red people.’ The students here don’t want it changed. To them, it seems like it’s just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.
“My kids are really afraid we’re going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, ‘They’re not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?'”
Too late. White America has spoken. You aren’t offended, so we’ll be offended for you.
Same story with the Red Mesa (Ariz.) High School Redskins. They wear the name with fierce pride. They absolutely don’t see it as an insult. But what do they know? The student body is only 99.3 percent Native American.
And even though an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name, and even though linguists say the “redskins” word was first used by Native Americans themselves, and even though nobody on the Blackfeet side of my wife’s family has ever had someone insult them with the word “redskin,” it doesn’t matter. There’s no stopping a wave of PC-ness when it gets rolling.
I mean, when media stars like USA Today’s Christine Brennan, a white woman from Ohio, and Peter King, a white man from Massachusetts, have jumped on a people’s cause, there’s no going back.
Besides, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said last week that if “even one person is offended” on this issue, we need to “listen.”
One person?
Joe Robbins/Getty ImagesHeaddresses are traditionally worn on important occasions by Native Americans who have worked to earn each feather.
Got it. Guess we need to listen to people who are offended by the Kansas City Chiefs’ name, too. That’s one that offends my father-in-law. “You see some little guy wearing a headdress made of chicken feathers,” he says, “painting his face up, making a mockery of us. I hate that. Those are things you earn.”
One person? I know an atheist who is offended by religious names like the New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. There are people who who don’t think Ole Miss should be the Rebels. People who lost family to Hurricanes. There are people who think Wizards promotes paganism. Shall we listen to all of them?
I guess so.
Edmundo Macedo, vice president of ESPN’s Stats & Information group, told ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte that the term Redskins is abhorrent. “We would not accept anything similar as a team nickname if it were associated with any other ethnicity or any other race,” Macedo said.
Oh, yes, we would.
In fact, ESPN and many other media companies cover the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves without a single searing search of their social conscience.
Doesn’t matter. The 81-year-old Washington Redskins name is falling, and everybody better get out of the way. For the majority of Native Americans who don’t care, we’ll care for them. For the Native Americans who haven’t asked for help, we’re glad to give it to them.
Trust us. We know what’s best. We’ll take this away for your own good, and put up barriers that protect you from ever being harmed again.
Kind of like a reservation.”

The government’s shut down or semi-shut down, we’ve just implemented parts of Obamacare which good or bad is going to cause some drastic changes in our system of medical care, unemployment remains very high, the economy remains sluggish, we’re engaged in various forms of military offensives in the middle east, and on and on. And the name of a football team is a really big issue?

Whatever happened to saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” If you truly love America you’ve got to embrace the fact that others have the right to say whatever they want. THAT’S what TRUE FREE SPEECH REALLY IS!!!!!

I have a compromise, Give the team a third name. then they could be referred to as whichever name you prefer.
Probably not good example but lets say they change the name to the Washington Redskin Indians. They could then be referred to as the Washington Redskins or the Washington Indians.

baywolfe says:
Oct 8, 2013 10:30 AM
You said; “Can we PLEASE stop calling them Native Americans?”
Instead they are First Nation’s people any way you cut it. I’m SENECA. First of all, being associated with the term America is more offensive to us than “Redskins”. I’m proud of my “RED” heritage, and yes, by using all uppercase letters, REDSKIN, you are right, I am shouting!!! Read “Raising Hope”, especially one of the short stories; “Warrior Spirit”.

blacknole08 says:
Oct 8, 2013 10:38 AM
You said; “The truth of the matter is that at this point people are just jumping on the bandwagon for a name change without doing any thorough research behind how the Skins became the team name in the first place.” I agree with you here! Kudos, and I’m proudly Seneca.

atthemurph says:
Oct 8, 2013 10:39 AM
You said ; “The color of red symbolized violence, war, blood, wounds, strength, energy, power and success in war paint but might also symbolize happiness and beauty in face paint.”
WOW, well said! As a Seneca, I’m with you all the way. Thanks for posting this! We were the first of this Nation’s People, so we are first and foremost “First Nation’s People”.

The term Redskins sounds like a people who are ready to play Football, don’t you think. If the term sounds a bit intimidating, it’s mean to be, regarding any opponent. Our home town team here is the FM Hornets. Now what do you think we intend to do to our opponents? Knit with them; no STING them for the win. GREYWOLF

Mr. Florio, scrolling down all these comments about your article and position, you will find–overwhelmingly– that most people (by clicking thumbs up or down on comments) support the notion that the name Redskins is a non issue. Unless all these people here are deemed “non reasonable ” or are all Redskins fans, or haters of you, which I feel is not the case…then we have a reasonable sample here. Conclusion…no one bothered for 80 years, untill some Liberal and an attention seeking tribe are crying wolf to get attention, and are attracting more liberals to the cause. The Redskins are honoring Native Americans with their name and logo. They bring them to the forefront. “Braves on the warpath…fight for OL DC” their song says. Having a red skin, a black skin, a yellow skin…being called a redskin, blackskin, or yellowskin, how is this a slur? You can call someone a “stupid redskin” and it is a slur…or call them a “brave redskin” and it is not a slur…the word “redskin” is NOT the slur word there…right??? It is all about how it is used in a context. Using the slur “N…..s” towards black people is quite a bit different. The color of their skin is inferred there, but the word itself is the slur.

Next we’ll ask Pinkerton Tobacco to change their product name from “Red Man”.
If this is offensive then the title “Indian” is offensive since it was a mistake anyhow because Columbus didn’t know where he was.
Sick of catering to the 5% that cause all of the problems. If you don’t like their name then don’t buy merchandise and don’t watch the games!

fmc651 says:Oct 15, 2013 11:53 AM

Change the name already Snyder, its not like fans will stop watching the team you idiot. You are embarrassing your fans base by letting them continue to defend a racist name. You read their weak false equivalencies for their arguments as to keeping the racist name and it is laughable.
Or they just say well it has been that way for so many years. So what, you were wrong for so many years so lets continue being wrong.